Mr P O’Callaghan, counsel v Ms P Zdanowicz, legal representative — 2024

Mrs K Scislowska worked for Fairtax Accounting Limited as a payroll clerk. The tribunal found that her dismissal, effective 31 August 2023, was principally for capability and performance. It accepted there were genuine concerns about productivity and some errors, but found those concerns were not as widespread or serious as the respondent suggested and that the respondent had not managed the matter through a fair performance process.

The tribunal held that the respondent did not follow the ordinary procedural steps for a poor-performance dismissal. There was no formal written warning, no clear written case to answer, no proper investigation, no meaningful opportunity to improve, and no appeal. Although the respondent was a small employer, the tribunal said there was no good reason why most of those steps could not have been taken. On that basis, the dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses and the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.

On notice, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that dismissal had effectively been communicated on 1 August 2023. It found that notice was actually received on 26 August 2023, so the claimant had only been given 5 days' notice against a minimum 2-week notice period. The wrongful dismissal / unpaid notice pay claim therefore succeeded, with the tribunal finding the claimant was entitled to a further 9 days' notice pay.

The tribunal also found that no written statement of employment particulars had been provided. It rejected the suggestion that an intranet template available for client use met the employer's obligation or that the claimant was responsible for completing her own contract. Section 38 Employment Act 2002 was therefore engaged, and the question of any minimum uplift, together with the remaining remedy issues including reduction, mitigation, and contribution, was left to a remedy hearing listed for 23 October 2024.